On The Heels Of A Disaster, The Conversation On Nuclear Is Turning Negative
Things are grim in Japan right now, to say the very least. The nearly endless stream of bad news, followed by more bad news, has the whole world on edge. Amid the death and destruction, the discovery of a 4 month old baby and a 70 year old woman, both found alive in a sea of debris, gives hope to rescuers that they just might find more survivors clinging to life. But now, the reality of the meltdown of reactors, explosions and smoke plumes sending radiation levels soaring by some accounts, has the world second guessing, once again, the benefit of nuclear power. Nuclear reactors are, by and large, safe. The destruction in Japan has lead to a full on nuclear disaster it seems, but is that reason enough to permanently sideline the role that nuclear power will play in America's energy future?
I don't buy into the notion that America cannot be 'energy independent'. That's a lie, perpetuated by the anti-pertroleum pundits who'd just as soon shoot an American oil man in the head as to support the expansion of drilling. Of course, that doesn't stop the little tree huggers from fueling up their 'hybrids', now does it? America can and must become energy independent. Oil and natural gas will play the biggest role. Coal will have to be thrown into the mix, although incresed natural gas production can replace some of that long term. But nuclear goes into the mix too. Nuclear power can supply millions of people with power with very little enviromental impact. Granted, much has to be done to safely handle and store the waste (the Obama administration put the breaks on the Yucca Mountain project in 2009). As tragic as the events in Japan have been, we cannot afford to eliminate nuclear as a possibility. Something equally as efficient may come along, but for our own safety, security and independence, America must do everything it can to be truly energy independent.